Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Obviously, you didn't look into the allegations and you've just ignored what people were upset about.

Namely, The Fine Young Capitalists, a feminist group, was harassed by Zoe Quinn and it was not reported.

Not by you, Polygon, Kotaku, RPS, or any other site. They got harassed and one person got doxxed and you're not condemning that. You're not reporting on it but you want me to rage about the Erin post when I said nothing about it.

Further, you skipped right over how 32,000 comments were deleted from Reddit when they were talking about it.

So don't claim people are amazing when all I've done is point out what was missed.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I think they believe it's silly to critique video games the same way we do television, art, and literature. I think that they believe video games are for light-hearted, often mindless fun, not for social critique.

That's rather false given how the Bayonetta reviews came out and Polygon's was minded toward the "social justice" crowd and gave it a 7.5 because of her "sexiness". Meanwhile, the author has an account on Suicide Girls which is a risque site for young girls marking his hypocrisy.

Other sites gave it a higher rating for gameplay instead of how sexy the character was. These are the same problems that came up in GTA V which ignored other aspects of social commentary. We got someone arguing about strip clubs in video games but they ignore how you torture an innocent man in one of the later missions.

If you want to bring in social politics, at least be consistent in the review. Rather glaring when you see how many people care about how sexy a main character is.

They're INCREDIBLY WRONG on every count, mind you, but I don't think the majority of gamergaters actively hate women or don't want women in their games industry. They just don't want to have to think about the social context of those games, what those games have to say about all of us playing them, or how the industry functions.

And, as I said earlier, until they can control the violence-threatening, idiot minority in their own ranks, they don't get to set the agenda. The dickheads have set it for them.

The majority of gamergate writings I've seen have been misogynistic, and a distressing amount of it has been violently so.

Please show these. I've had a different experience and I've noticed a lot more people willing to make claims on the lives of people supportive of GG than against others.

So I agree, people who are genuinely concerned about journalistic integrity should distance themselves from "gamergate" as much as they can and assemble their own movement. I could get behind such an effort.

It's not really a movement, but a revolt against the corrupt journalists that refuse to report on anything accurately or fairly. Instead of buying into one sided narratives, people have been looking into stories themselves and finding out the things missed by these biased narratives and reporting it themselves. If you try to distance them from the scandal that broke based on Gamergate (namely, the 14 articles declaring "Gamers are dead") then you're ignoring how incredibly crass and entitled those "journalists" seem in trying to dump crap on their patrons.

If anything, I'd probably recommend looking at the recent Huffington Post articles as well as some of the links above to understand where people are actually upset.

Re:

Two Centrist Democrats

You can just see that he doesn't even care anymore. He's trying to put out a ton of fires and they keep popping up because Obama is listening to the wrong people...

And this keeps happening.

Folks... Franklin Delano Roosevelt did all of this in his first two sessions of his presidency. Let's make no bones about it. He listened to the conservatives bully, harry, and harass him until there was opposition to what was going on. To say otherwise is to ignore history.

Why are we repeating history?

We've had a Great Recession since 2007 and we had a Great Depression in 1929. You had a president when faced with opposition become far more progressive and work constantly to do a ton of things that either worked or failed. FDR closed the banks. He tried other stop measures by bailing out the rich. He did everything he could until WWII had him put 1/2 of the country in uniforms and the other 1/2 creating the uniforms.

We're not doing that this time. Hell, I'm omitting the sharecroppers and other poor people left out of the progressive era or the rise of the FBI and CIA from this time period.

He had three main things to deal with while Obama had Occupy. Instead of embracing this fledgling movement, he crushed it.

Instead of turning back the police state, he pushed it further. Instead of appeasing his base, he alienated it.

He's weak. Or he just doesn't care because he has two terms and he's getting out.

At this point, a LOT of people are pushing for Hillary and I can tell you she'll be just as bad, even worse. Remember, the biggest deregulation came from Bill when he signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which allowed the banks to speculate with taxpayer money.

But Obama? Will be a footnote. No legacy. No integrity. All the promises are hollow. He did nothing but turn into Hoover and people expect the next president to do more.

That's just ignoring the situation.

Folks, FDR had to face an organized grassroots effort to push his for reforms and eventually a New Deal. You know how we paid off the war? Taxes on the rich and corporations was at 94% And it has been going down. As it goes down for corporations and the rich, it goes up on people that aren't rich. Simple math.

But let's explain something...

For every dollar at the maximum level, the rich got to keep only $.06 with the maximum income at the time was $25,000 (roughly $300,000 now)

But now, they keep $.75 at the tax rate now.

And people want to keep lowering that tax rate now?

Perhaps doing some of the things that helped people before can help. Organizing, agitating, and pointing out the problems of society could help us have a better president. Maybe it can force Obama to care. But if you don't put pressure on the president to be great, they never will. That's the lesson learned.

Re:

People took a lot of money in helping out in funding a new ISP already.

I think it started went to $2 million. Can't recall it right now, but I'm sure it was on Ars Technica if someone else remembers...

Anyway, let's get to a few things...

While I firmly believe that most unions today are counterproductive (frequently holding back innovation and flexibility),

This isn't really true because unions represent democracy in the workplace. There are certainly some undemocratic unions but that's the result of rules such as the Taft-Hartley Act which deprive unions of dues while also having them represent people that don't pay these dues. It's a starvation tactic and it works to make unions less effective. Also, look in other countries such as Germany. They made unions stronger while America, since 1946, has made unions weaker.

That it later resulted in vast amounts of corruption and cronyism, let alone hindering the way in which companies could innovate and adapt, are certainly big issues to be concerned about -- but there were reasons why that happened as well (driven by leadership on both sides).

I'm not positive about this but the emphasis should be where we question this... Why are we only looking at leadership? The premise I set is that you pay dues for your protection in the workplace. After seeing what has happened to the largest unions (Teamsters for example), their decimation should make us question how we can better protect workers. It's not happening right now and the result is that the Steve Jobs of the world can walk all over their employees as a result of collusion. That should be something avoided IMO.

In regards to the Consumer's Union, I support the idea, and want to see how it goes. It's about time that people recognize that democracy begins with them. To have so many people create an organization from scratch is certainly needed along with someone advocating municipal broadband while protecting people on the national level could be done. It just takes organizing. I'll definitely see how this comes up as time goes along.

Three years...

Three years... I made this comment as an inspiration and a warning based off General Adama's insight from Battlestar Galactica...

Adama didn't want to be the president as well as the highest military commander. Such an interest would destroy any form of democratic expression, which was the point.

America IS a police state. There is no denying it now. The no knock warrants, the Sound Cannons, the teargas and tyranny are caused by a long line of undemocratic measures making economic and political progress impossible for the mass of people.

Why did we allow this? Where did we go wrong? It's not just one event and pointing fingers won't help. But it's time to correct the mistakes so that they don't keep piling up and killing innocent people frustrated at their loss of constitutional rights.